What do vampires do when they retire?
What do vampires do when they retire?
And that's all she wrote for UW Basketball
If you find the next Bo, sure. But what coach would want to step into that program with the lack of recruiting pipeline? Bo weaves straw into gold.
Make the right hire and they'll be fine. Hell they screwed up the first coach post Dick Bennett and they rebounded nicely. No reason UW can't be a consistent winner.
Also interesting that Alvarez basically asked him to retire. A bold choice for an AD without a stellar history of coaching hires.
If you find the next Bo, sure. But what coach would want to step into that program with the lack of recruiting pipeline? Bo weaves straw into gold.
Bo's own tweet said Barry approached him to discuss his retirement. Is that an AD thing to do each year? Did Wojo get that question?
What? Barry didn't ask him to retire.
Also interesting that Alvarez basically asked him to retire. A bold choice for an AD without a stellar history of coaching hires.
And a program with investment and recruiting pipeline is required to get a good coach. Bo Ryans don't exist after this one steps down.
Again, a good coach can build a recruiting pipeline. Look what Wojo did.
It sounds like he was considering retiring immediately after the season and Barry talked him into waiting.
This is how I read it as well.For discussion's sake: why would an AD want that to be the case? If Barry already knows he's going to hire Gard, why have a lame duck coach for a year? A year with empty cupboards is perfect for a transition.
Bo's own tweet said Barry approached him to discuss his retirement. Is that an AD thing to do each year? Did Wojo get that question?
For discussion's sake: why would an AD want that to be the case? If Barry already knows he's going to hire Gard, why have a lame duck coach for a year? A year with empty cupboards is perfect for a transition.
Also interesting that Alvarez basically asked him to retire. A bold choice for an AD without a stellar history of coaching hires.
According to your theory, Barry already got involved in trying to get Bo to extend his career beyond what he intended. That's respecting his terms?
Because Barry like Bo and is going to allow him to retire on his own terms. Whether or not that is smart or not can be discussed. But Barry very much respects Bo. Barry also doesn't want to piss off any donors.
Old vampires never die, they just fade away...
Barry cooled on Bo.Well done and fantastic
According to your theory, Barry already got involved in trying to get Bo to extend his career beyond what he intended. That's respecting his terms?
If you find the next Bo, sure. But what coach would want to step into that program with the lack of recruiting pipeline? Bo weaves straw into gold.
Buzz to Wisconsin.
Probably the reading comprehension problem.
Are you having reading comprehension problems or are you simply being argumentative?
Bo sat down with Barry after the season. Said he was contemplating retirement. Barry encouraged him to take some time and not make the decision immediately after the season was over. Bo took a few weeks to think about it and told Barry he wanted to coach one more year. Barry agreed.
Is that hard?
As the flagship university in a state with a growing pool of high level basketball talent, UW will always have a recruiting pipeline.Call me old fashioned but I'd consider a pipeline to be one with demonstrated history of success. What percentage of the last five Mr. Basketball's that UW was in on ended up going there?
Whether the next coach is able to take advantage of that, we'll have to see, but it'll be there for him.
Buzz to Wisconsin.
TC to Wisconsin.
Call me old fashioned but I'd consider a pipeline to be one with demonstrated history of success. What percentage of the last five Mr. Basketball's that UW was in on ended up going there?
UW has a pipeline into Wisconsin Basketball talent the same way DePaul has a pipeline on Chicago basketball talent.
Really? That's how you judge it ... by percentage of the last five Mr. Basketballs?Has UW gotten the cream of the crop from Wisconsin? I think that's been a Marquette habit the past five years, no?
By that standard, I don't think any school anywhere has a recruiting pipeline within their state.
After all, only one Kansas Mr. Basketball has gone to KU in the last eight years.
Has UW gotten the cream of the crop from Wisconsin? I think that's been a Marquette habit the past five years, no?
Not even saying I'm a homer; it's not like UW is MSU, Ohio State, Indiana, etc
Has UW gotten the cream of the crop from Wisconsin? I think that's been a Marquette habit the past five years, no?
Not even saying I'm a homer; it's not like UW is MSU, Ohio State, Indiana, etc
UW is consistently in the running for the top players in the state. They don't always get them.So... it's a school steeped in tradition of moral victories
Very true. UW under Ryan only goes to the big Dance as much as Michigan state and more often than the others than Ohio State and Indiana.I agree - I'm talking about recruits. In case you missed it, Ryan will no longer be coach at UW. I am arguing that the program for a new coach is not as attractive as it's made out to be. Bo is an exceptional coach, but the program itself hasn't built recruiting pipelines or a demonstrated intent to invest in the program at a high level.
Indiana may be a "blue blood" but they are nowhere near the program UW has been under Ryan.
Has UW gotten the cream of the crop from Wisconsin? I think that's been a Marquette habit the past five years, no?
UW is consistently in the running for the top players in the state. They don't always get them.Not to beat a dead horse, but UW's recruiting class isn't even in the top 40 according to ESPN. That's after back-to-back final fours.
Not really.How highly ranked were Pritzl, Koenig, Dekker and Showalter?
Over the last five years, MU has landed Ellenson, Heldt, Cohen, D. Wilson and Burton.
UW has landed Pritzl, Koenig, Dekker and Showalter.
Seems like both schools have done well in-state.
Two years ago, this really wouldn't have mattered much as we were going after different recruits a lot. Now, with Wojo, I think this is a good thing for MU.
How highly ranked were Pritzl, Koenig, Dekker and Showalter?
If you are saying "can Greg Gard get the same production out of the same caliber recruits?" Then I would agree that it is note likely.I am saying Tony Bennett might but there is absolutely ZERO POINT ZERO PERCENT CHANCE of Bennett leaving UVA for UW.
But if you suggest that someone new, like Tony Bennett for example, isn't going to be able to build recruiting pipelines at Wisconsin, I think you are off base.
Not to send you on a run doing homework, but it's not like UW has this entitlement to the top 5 kids each year from WI, no? I mean who are they out-recruiting? Stout?
Pritzl (2015 #77 RSCI)
Koenig (2013 #79)
Dekker (2012 #19)
How highly ranked were Pritzl, Koenig, Dekker and Showalter?
Not to send you on a run doing homework, but it's not like UW has this entitlement to the top 5 kids each year from WI, no? I mean who are they out-recruiting? Stout?
Who said they did?Fair share would mean half, right? Since there are only two major programs in state?
You've gone from claiming they don't have a recruiting pipeline in the state, which is wrong, to arguing they don't have an entitlement on top 5 kids.
Nobody said they get all the top in-state players. No school gets all their top in-state players. But they're in on all of them and get a fair share of them ... hence, a recruiting pipeline.
Not to send you on a run doing homework, but it's not like UW has this entitlement to the top 5 kids each year from WI, no? I mean who are they out-recruiting? Stout?
From what I understand Bo is sticking around one more year for Koenig and Hayes
This could be a good thing for MU, but MU consistently beat out Bo for WI recruits, I'm not sure a new coach could do much worse in that department.
Madison Memorial should, for example, be a slam dunk for them. They should be able to skim 100% of the players they recruit from there. It's an embarrassment that they don't.
You are really undermining your arguments with stupid comments like this.
Pritzl has a higher ranking than any guard coming into UW next year. Koenig was just a few slots below Duane Wilson. Dekker was the highest rated player to come out of Wisconsin until Looney came out last year.
But look at who they missed on. Im not even talking about the big names like Stone and Ellenson because they can be kinda a crap shoot. Im talking about players like Vander, Wes, Fischer. Or even players like Sharma. They have people who weren't going anywhere else like Bronson and Dekker.
But look at who they missed on. Im not even talking about the big names like Stone and Ellenson because they can be kinda a crap shoot. Im talking about players like Vander, Wes, Fischer. Or even players like Sharma. They have people who weren't going anywhere else like Bronson and Dekker.
They got 1 of the 2 players they targeted from Memorial.
Keaton Nankivill went there. Vander Blue verballed and backed out. They didn't want Maymon (for obvious reasons).
Wes Matthews? (overall I agree with you though)
Make the right hire and they'll be fine. Hell they screwed up the first coach post Dick Bennett and they rebounded nicely. No reason UW can't be a consistent winner.
Bucky has no basketball tradition outside of Bo. The barely made the tourney outside of Bo.
Arkansas under Richardson, LSU under Dale Brown. Oklahoma State under Eddie Sutton, Indiana under Knight. Great coaches that saw their programs permently slip once they left.
This is Bucky's risk, if the next coach slips, the fall into the abyss of being a 6th place B1G team every year. Occassionally they are very good, but then NIT bound the next. That is ok for most schools but I think the Bucky faithful would be disappointed.
This is not UNC or Kansas, or even Indiana, it will be very hard to recover from the next hire.
Unless you think making the tourney 2 out of 3 years and making the second week once every five years is the goal, Barry has a daunting task to find someone to keep Bucky at its level of the last few years.
I'd probably quit too if I missed out on players like Henry and diamond in my own state
Wes Matthews? (overall I agree with you though)Maymon
Maymon
Dick Bennett took them to a Final Four before Bo.
UW will be fine. They will not fall far.
So... it's a school steeped in tradition of moral victories
Maymon
With Wardle at Bradley and Bo retiring, next year will Wojo be the elder statesmen of Wisconsin college basketball?
UW didn't recruit Maymon.
They didn't want Maymon.....are you really this dense?apparently
So this is what it's like for Badger fans when Marquette haters take over their discussion board...What are you talking about?
Despite the fact that we in the states really couldn't care less about how royal succession works, Queen Elizabeth was an "heir contingent" before she ascended to the throne; she was first in line of succession, but if she had a brother born before her father passed, she would not have been queen (her younger brother would have been king). Prince Charles, however, is an "heir apparent," meaning that nobody can vault in front of him (provided he's alive at the time of Queen Elizabeth's passing) and the only way he wouldn't be king is if he abdicated the throne.
"Why the lesson, Benny?" Stop whining and be patient.... this is why:
Greg Gard is the heir apparent; he is not the heir contingent. Sure, Barry is going to go through the motions of identifying, and perhaps interviewing other candidates, but unless Gard declines the job (not likely), these candidates are just going to go through an exercise.
Put it this way... if you have a star employee that you know is retiring, you want to get to work on hiring a replacement as soon as you can. You don't say "can you stick around another year" unless you already have a damn good idea of who is taking over. Conversely, if you're that employee who's retiring and you want your protege to succeed you, you don't announce your retirement to the world a year in advance and give your boss all of that time in which to find someone better.
Bo and Barry are doing this the right way. Gard is going to effectively be the head coach by the end of the year, whether Bo is sitting on the bench or not. If Bo had any inkling that Barry wasn't going to hire Gard, he would have kept his mouth shut and departed just before the conference season started.
I haven't heard anything in this specific regard, but I would be very surprised if Gard's HC contract hasn't already been drafted, approved by both parties, and is sitting in an "embargo file" somewhere out of the reach of FOIA. Or maybe it's not.
I was whining about the lesson. You make an excellent point though.
Exactly. They are hiring Gard.
Define far?There are only 3 programs in the US that have had more success over the last 2 years and two of them are Duke and Kentucky.
Is this too far?
Unless you think making the tourney 2 out of 3 years and making the second week once every five years is the goal, Barry has a daunting task to find someone to keep Bucky at its level of the last few years.
Define far?
Is this too far?
Unless you think making the tourney 2 out of 3 years and making the second week once every five years is the goal, Barry has a daunting task to find someone to keep Bucky at its level of the last few years.
Despite the fact that we in the states really couldn't care less about how royal succession works, Queen Elizabeth was an "heir contingent" before she ascended to the throne; she was first in line of succession, but if she had a brother born before her father passed, she would not have been queen (her younger brother would have been king). Prince Charles, however, is an "heir apparent," meaning that nobody can vault in front of him (provided he's alive at the time of Queen Elizabeth's passing) and the only way he wouldn't be king is if he abdicated the throne.
"Why the lesson, Benny?" Stop whining and be patient.... this is why:
Greg Gard is the heir apparent; he is not the heir contingent. Sure, Barry is going to go through the motions of identifying, and perhaps interviewing other candidates, but unless Gard declines the job (not likely), these candidates are just going to go through an exercise.
Put it this way... if you have a star employee that you know is retiring, you want to get to work on hiring a replacement as soon as you can. You don't say "can you stick around another year" unless you already have a damn good idea of who is taking over. Conversely, if you're that employee who's retiring and you want your protege to succeed you, you don't announce your retirement to the world a year in advance and give your boss all of that time in which to find someone better.
Bo and Barry are doing this the right way. Gard is going to effectively be the head coach by the end of the year, whether Bo is sitting on the bench or not. If Bo had any inkling that Barry wasn't going to hire Gard, he would have kept his mouth shut and departed just before the conference season started.
I haven't heard anything in this specific regard, but I would be very surprised if Gard's HC contract hasn't already been drafted, approved by both parties, and is sitting in an "embargo file" somewhere out of the reach of FOIA. Or maybe it's not.
So who will be transferring out or decommitting with this news?By waiting until mid-summer, I suspect they all show up. Some are probably already on campus and enrolled in summer school.
By waiting until mid-summer, I suspect they all show up. Some are probably already on campus and enrolled in summer school.
If this news broke in April, I suspect a few may have looked elsewhere. Could this be an intended advantage to the wait to announce?
By waiting until mid-summer, I suspect they all show up. Some are probably already on campus and enrolled in summer school.
If this news broke in April, I suspect a few may have looked elsewhere. Could this be an intended advantage to the wait to announce?
The coaching fraternity will view this as a top tier vacancy.
Greg Gard is not the man for the job.
I doubt Bennett would take it. Remember, he's not an alum.
But anyone not coaching at UNC, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, MSU, OSU would probably give it a look.
Once again MUScoop was right (or at least some in the know posters). I guess the rumors on this board were correct.
Two years ago, this really wouldn't have mattered much as we were going after different recruits a lot. Now, with Wojo, I think this is a good thing for MU.
For us Marquette fans: UW is going to solid still. Unless whomever they hire (Gard, etc.) is a total dud, they have a program not just a good coach.
For Badger fans: can you now stop with the whole Bo rumors were done by Marquette and Wojo to hurt UW's recruiting. We've been hearing that since the Final Four. Now we know there is some truth to the rumors not some recruiting tricks.
who thought that? how long ago?
The coaching fraternity will view this as a top tier vacancy.you are out of your mind
Greg Gard is not the man for the job.
I doubt Bennett would take it. Remember, he's not an alum.
But anyone not coaching at UNC, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, MSU, OSU would probably give it a look.
Two thoughts ...I'm not informed enough to opine on the first thought but it would be very hard to argue over your top 6.....we could quibble over the ranking i.e. MD is based off of future promise and WI off of recent past, and following Thad's legacy may be more desirable than the IU gig, but essentially you are correct.
Here is my ranking of the most desirable Big 10 basketball coaching jobs
Michigan State
Indiana
Ohio State
Michigan
Maryland
Wisconsin
The rest
TONY BENNETT IS THE ONLY COACH THAT CAN SAVE BADGER BB.This
I suppose that would have been on what has been previously dubbed "The Underboard", if I recall correctly.
The easiest thing for them to do is to hire Gard. That is why they are going to do exactly that. May not be the best hire, but its the best way to ensure program continuity and to keep the current boosters happy.Good point. By "continuity" as it pertains to Tony Bennett, I guess I meant a more prominent "name brand" continuity.
I'm not informed enough to opine on the first thought but it would be very hard to argue over your top 6.....we could quibble over the ranking i.e. MD is based off of future promise and WI off of recent past, and following Thad's legacy may be more desirable than the IU gig, but essentially you are correct.for poops and laughs here's my list of top 25 jobs... order within groups are debatable but I'd say these are the appropriate tiers.
That isn't a shame on the position. Aren't those 6 of the top 25 HC jobs available in the country? As the program is performing since this century, that is a pretty good situation to take over.
If I was to be the Prince of Whales and the 6th seed to The Crown (Benny B please don't fact check this) would I complain to QE that there were 5 royals in front of me?
Two thoughts ...
Which is a more prestigious job at Bucky, football or basketball coach?
I say football and Bucky has pretty much established itself as a stepping stone job.
Second ...
Here is my ranking of the most desirable Big 10 basketball coaching jobs
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Maryland
Wisconsin
The rest
Ohio
Earl Tatum post says it all. Marquette has been fortunate to have experienced sustained excellence, whereby each coach (save Piano Bob,) since Al has achieved varying degrees of success over time. Its why Wojo came here, and we are all thankful to have him. Each Coach at MU has put his own unique stamp on the program. In Madison, Bo Ryan IS the program. They have the campus, facilities, etc., but it will be interesting to see if they can maintain success with a different style of play and/or recruiting philosophy. Tony Bennett would be the ideal coach to provide continuity. It's difficult to follow a legend, and that fact is MU's best friend when Coach K calls it quits.I'd bet it keeps TB at UVa as well.I agree - I'd posit that the biggest single reason for MU's sustained success is its commitment to the program in terms of $.
Good point. By "continuity" as it pertains to Tony Bennett, I guess I meant a more prominent "name brand" continuity.
for poops and laughs here's my list of top 25 jobs... order within groups are debatable but I'd say these are the appropriate tiers.Harvard isn't anywhere close to a Top 25 job. MU isn't a Top 20 job either.
My idea is, if all coaches quit and had the chance to be be bid on, here's the rough order of who would "get their man" first
Top 5:
- Duke
- Kentucky
- Kansas
- Indiana
- UNC
Nos 6-10:
- Michigan State
- Arizona
- Louisville
- UCONN
- Kansas
Nos 11-15:
- Ohio State
- Syracuse
- Michigan
- Florida
- Texas
Nos 16-20:
- Oregon
- UCLA
- Marquette
- Villanova
- Pittsburgh
Nos 21-25:
- Notre Dame
- Harvard
- Wisconsin
- Oklahoma State
- Pittsburgh
Harvard isn't anywhere close to a Top 25 job. MU isn't a Top 20 job either.I'll agree Harvard is a stretch, but MU isn't. A big part of this is pay and resources. That's a huge deal, and the reason MU reloads with great coaches even if one leaves.
Wisconsin is a better job than Marquette right now. Really no question about it.Not based on recruiting, facilities, salaries or resources.
Now back to Marquette basketball.
I'm going to miss Dracula. He was a great foil for Marquette basketball. He was evil to our good. Beating Bo was like, well, beating Digger Phelps years ago. It makes your day when it happens.
Dracula is probably the best coach I've seen since Al and maybe Dean Smith. I like Dracula because he takes average to better than average talent and reaches the Final Four. His kids play hard and disruptive basketball. When we beat a Dracula-coached Rodent team, it was because we stayed in our game and didn't let them get to us. Dracula's kids were smart, played hard and, regrettably, won too often!
who thought that? how long ago?
+1+10,000,000. "Dracula" fits Bo to a "T" he rarely was whistled for. This post made me feel that big Frank is the quintessential "Frankenstein", a monster of a player who was brought back from the recruiting-ranking dead by a mad genius. Yeah, that's right, Frankie, WE ARE MARQUETTE, it's a pride thing, not an ID bracelet, you wouldnt understand. But, since the monster's creator was actually the one named (Dr.) Frankenstein, can we find a GIF with a giant bolt through Dracula's neck?? And will the next Doctor, I mean Coach, please not try to find Frankie a bride??
He was fun to hate. He coached teams that played such a different style that it was fun to hate that about them too.
I hope that they bring in an equally unlikable coach.
Not based on recruiting, facilities, salaries or resources.
What's the Bucky advantage?
They're in the Big Ten.
Look, Buzz isn't the only big-time coach in D1 that feels that a non-football school outside the SEC, ACC, B1G, etc. is a second tier option. I would say your average D1 coach would easily rank Wisconsin ahead of Marquette.
Marquette is only more attractive than Wisconsin if you factor out football and its influence on NCAA governance. Fans can easily do that. Coaches won't.
That having been said, I suspect Gard is their man by choice. But if they do go outside, they're going to attract some big name interest, and our fans trying to make the argument that Wisconsin is a less attractive job by comparison to us is not based on reality.
They're in the Big Ten.so... Madison gets a point for conference. All other for Marquette.
Look, Buzz isn't the only big-time coach in D1 that feels that a non-football school outside the SEC, ACC, B1G, etc. is a second tier option. I would say your average D1 coach would easily rank Wisconsin ahead of Marquette.
Marquette is only more attractive than Wisconsin if you factor out football and its influence on NCAA governance. Fans can easily do that. Coaches won't.
That having been said, I suspect Gard is their man by choice. But if they do go outside, they're going to attract some big name interest, and our fans trying to make the argument that Wisconsin is a less attractive job by comparison to us is not based on reality.
Harvard isn't anywhere close to a Top 25 job. MU isn't a Top 20 job either.I agree on Harvard but a list like this is soooo subjective for both the casual fan and a head coach. Factor in support (fan, financial, institutional), administration, physical location, budget, history, connections to AAU/sporting company, conference affiliation, public vs. private, personal connection etc. etc. and importance each person places on each of these inputs moves that job up or down the list.
Not based on recruiting, facilities, salaries or resources.
What's the Bucky advantage?
If you're counting heavily on the recent tourney success, you should also weight heavily on the recent recruiting success where UW has been embarrassing versus MU who was able to land a top ten class for a rookie head coach.
I agree on Harvard but a list like this is soooo subjective for both the casual fan and a head coach. Factor in support (fan, financial, institutional), administration, physical location, budget, history, connections to AAU/sporting company, conference affiliation, public vs. private, personal connection etc. etc. and importance each person places on each of these inputs moves that job up or down the list.
UVA, USC, G'Town and even Tenn (SMDH) could be argued onto this list. I think the bottom line is outside of the top 5 - 7 --- giving a range to avoid the "which schools a blue bloods" argument --- both MU and WI would be included in a large pool of really good jobs. How you rank one over the other is personal choice.
He'll finally have time to focus all his energy and efforts on stealing Christmas.
They have much more money than MU does.
Facilities are better. (Bradley Center is nice, but I would trade it for an on campus arena like the Kohl Center in a heartbeat.) Conference affiliation is better. They have much more money than MU does. Recruiting? Its located 90 miles away from MU. They recruit the same territory. Much larger fanbase than MU.
I'm not going to be such a homer that I can't recognize these things.
2014 Basketball Budgets
8 $10,522,823 Marquette (BIGEAST)
29 $7,596,206 Wisconsin (BIG10)
Source: http://www.bbstate.com/info/teams-hoopsbudget (http://www.bbstate.com/info/teams-hoopsbudget)
How much they allocated to basketball isn't a reflection of how much money each school has.
Athletic Department Revenue:
Wisconsin: $124,928,916
Marquette: $29,721,972
Source: http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/ (http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/)
In other words, they have a lot more money than MU.
But it is a reflection of institutional support and priorities.
Bingo! A men's basketball coach would care about how much a school spends for basketball not football, hockey, swimming, etc. Wisconsin had an extra $95 million in athletic department revenue and in 2014 they still spent almost $3 million less for basketball than Marquette did.
Unless you're buzz remember he did his math calculation of the chances of being successful at a non football school.
But it is a reflection of institutional support and priorities.
Or that MU paying rent to the Bradley Center while UW played at their own facility is a "reflection of institutional support and priorities?" Some might argue that the fact that UW has is own facility in and of itself is a "reflection of institutional support and priorities"
Or that UW could sell out their place hardly lifting a finger, but MU had significant marketing expenses and still wound up with an average of 3700 empty seats per game? That means MU had more institutional support?
NBA Arena (and soon to be brand-new NBA Arena) plus the Al. To pretend this is even close is to be a Badger homer.
Facilities are better. (Bradley Center is nice, but I would trade it for an on campus arena like the Kohl Center in a heartbeat.) Conference affiliation is better. They have much more money than MU does. Recruiting? Its located 90 miles away from MU. They recruit the same territory. Much larger fanbase than MU.
I'm not going to be such a homer that I can't recognize these things.
Oh come on.What are you talking about? Bo should be paid in line with Izzo. Compensation isn't all about retention. They historically and notoriously penny pinch on coaching staff.
Buzz Williams making over 3 million while Bo Ryan "only" demanded 2.4 million is a "reflection of institutional support and priorities" for basketball? You don't think it reflected the fact that Bo Ryan wasn't going to bolt so UW didn't have to overpay him?
Or that MU paying rent to the Bradley Center while UW played at their own facility is a "reflection of institutional support and priorities?" Some might argue that the fact that UW has is own facility in and of itself is a "reflection of institutional support and priorities"
Or that UW could sell out their place hardly lifting a finger, but MU had significant marketing expenses and still wound up with an average of 3700 empty seats per game? That means MU had more institutional support?
But none of that matters, right? Because the only thing that matters is how much you spend.
NBA Arena (and soon to be brand-new NBA Arena) plus the Al. To pretend this is even close is to be a Badger homer.
What are you talking about? Bo should be paid in line with Izzo. Compensation isn't all about retention. They historically and notoriously penny pinch on coaching staff.
The Kohl center isn't the Bradley center. Whether or not the arena is on campus affects fans not the team. MU's team regularly has access to NBA teams coming through and practicing at the Al.
Practice facilities are ahead on MU's side.
And yes. A larger budget IS important to an incoming coach. Remember when Illinois (another anointed B10 school) hired Chew from Missouri, only for MU to practically double his salary? That doesn't happen at Wisconsin. At MU you have a golden checkbook to build your staff.
UW selling out a smaller arena during back to back FF runs is apples and oranges to a rebuilding year and an NBA arena in a town with other entertainment options.
This board is full of weird Badger defense. I'm not sh1tting on them but between MU and UW programs this is not even close.
It is simply reality that UW is a better program right now. More money...better conference...better facilities.
how does that matter? Honestly.
They don't own the NBA arena. Sorry.
how does that matter? Honestly.
Better facilities holds even less water with the coming athletic research center.
assuming the bucks are in milwaukee long enough to see the completion of said athletic research center.this group is the saddest bunch of MU pessimists I've ever seen. Honestly.
The only thing correct in this statement is that Wisconsin is in the better conference. The Badgers having millions to spend but giving it all to their football team does nothing for their basketball program. It doesn't matter that Marquette doesn't own the Bradley Center. It is still the facility they use and have access to and Kohl pales in comparison. Not to mention that Marquette h,as superior practice facilities. UW has been the better program on the court for the past two years. Historically, Marquette has been much better. Give it a few months and we will see this start to correct itself.
this group is the saddest bunch of MU pessimists I've ever seen. Honestly.
Looking for reasons to "Debbie downer"
What a bunch of loads
Marquette has been much better historically. But if you look at the overall facilities that UW practices, plays and trains in, they are better that MU's. And money wise, UW basketball makes a ton on their own.
You keep saying this, but you still haven't made an attempt to explain how, other than saying that UW owns the Kohl Center. I highly doubt any coach gives two chits whether the stadium his team plays in is owned or rented by the university
It is also on-campus, and much louder than the Bradley Center. Outside of the fact that an NBA team also plays there, I think the KC is simply better for college basketball than the BC. I have never really liked th BC as an arena. Too many seats too far away. Too big IMO for Marquette.
The only thing correct in this statement is that Wisconsin is in the better conference. The Badgers having millions to spend but giving it all to their football team does nothing for their basketball program. It doesn't matter that Marquette doesn't own the Bradley Center. It is still the facility they use and have access to and Kohl pales in comparison. Not to mention that Marquette h,as superior practice facilities. UW has been the better program on the court for the past two years. Historically, Marquette has been much better. Give it a few months and we will see this start to correct itself.
The problem is that you continue to equate how much you spend with how much you care.
Except good budget management says you spend what you have to in order to achieve the desired goal.
I just gave you three examples where UW didn't have to spend as much as Marquette because of structural differences in the programs. It has nothing to do with a lower prioritization of basketball.
Or that MU paying rent to the Bradley Center while UW played at their own facility is a "reflection of institutional support and priorities?" Some might argue that the fact that UW has is own facility in and of itself is a "reflection of institutional support and priorities"
Or that UW could sell out their place hardly lifting a finger, but MU had significant marketing expenses and still wound up with an average of 3700 empty seats per game? That means MU had more institutional support?
Buzz Williams making over 3 million while Bo Ryan "only" demanded 2.4 million is a "reflection of institutional support and priorities" for basketball? You don't think it reflected the fact that Bo Ryan wasn't going to bolt so UW didn't have to overpay him?
So let me ask you this: When this year's numbers come out, we'll likely see a drop in MU basketball spending on account of Wojo not getting the same money Buzz got in his last season (and not having to pay Chew-like money to assistants). Are you prepared to lead the argument that the new spending levels mean MU suddenly started caring less about basketball? That's been your argument so far--money=prioritization.
It is also on-campus, and much louder than the Bradley Center. Outside of the fact that an NBA team also plays there, I think the KC is simply better for college basketball than the BC. I have never really liked th BC as an arena. Too many seats too far away. Too big IMO for Marquette.
With their budget, they should be able to at least match us, if not outspend us. As to the three examples you gave:
MU does pay rent on the BC. They don't pay for upkeep which UW has to. Rent is probably more expensive than upkeep but it still offsets some of this difference. And on campus college arena vs. NBA arena is a subjective argument. I would prefer the NBA arena but understand why other prefer on campus.
I challenge your assertion that the Badgers have as little marketing costs as you seem to think they do. And that Marquette's are so much more. You are also comparing the best year in Badger basketball history to the worst year in the past 20-30 years for Marquette.
You are also comparing a school with 39,000 students and a stadium that seats 17,000 to a school with 12,000 students and a stadium that holds 20,000. I'd hope that in their best year ever a school with over 3 times as many students would be able to fill a stadium with 2,000 less seats.
[/quote
Which proves my point. UW doesn't have to spend to fill their arena. They have a built-in audience.
MU has to spend to bring in outside fans. It's a structural difference.
You cannot logically conclude that UW cares less because they don't have a large budget for a marketing campaign, when the reason for the difference is very obvious.Doesn't this support my argument? Marquette is willing to pay their coach's more? Isn't that most important factor of support to a head coach?
No, because your argument ignores reality.
If Buzz Williams threatens to leave if he doesn't get a huge raise, and Bo Ryan is happy and doesn't ask for a huge raise, Williams gets a huge raise and Ryan doesn't.
Someone else mentioned Izzo and why Ryan doesn't make the same. Well, Izzo's name is floated every time the Pistons hire a head coach. When has Bo Ryan EVER indicated he might leave Wisconsin?To answer your question, no I will not think that Marquette cares about basketball less. One, I don't think the numbers will go down significantly, the renovations to the Al were expensive. Two, even if the numbers go down, men's basketball will still be getting the biggest slice of the pie and the fans will still care about it more than any other sport. The only argument I have ever made is that basketball is not Wisconsin's main priority. No matter how you look at it, that is fact.
Not said was that the pie at MU is a lot smaller than the pie at UW.
Nothing you have said supports the notion that UW doesn't support basketball at the same level MU supports basketball.
The budgetary differences are due to structural items, not evidence that MU cares more.
Who ever said they aren't able to match us? They easily could.
My argument is that they don't have to and they achieve the same (or higher) level of success than we do.
Therefore, its false to look at the budget and conclude they don't care about basketball.
Except that upkeep isn't a basketball expense. It's a facilities expense. Just like MU has to pay upkeep on the Al which isn't a basketball expense.
I imagine you'd reject the argument that since UW spends more on upkeep for the Kohl center than MU spends on upkeep for the AL, it should be evidence that they care more about their facilities than MU.
The fact remains, rent is a $0 item for them. MU still has to pay rent for a venue for its basketball team.
UW has averaged nearly sellout since they opened the Kohl center. They didn't luck into one good year of attendance because they were performing well. And in our best years, we never averaged a sellout.
No, because your argument ignores reality.
If Buzz Williams threatens to leave if he doesn't get a huge raise, and Bo Ryan is happy and doesn't ask for a huge raise, Williams gets a huge raise and Ryan doesn't.
Someone else mentioned Izzo and why Ryan doesn't make the same. Well, Izzo's name is floated every time the Pistons hire a head coach. When has Bo Ryan EVER indicated he might leave Wisconsin?
Not said was that the pie at MU is a lot smaller than the pie at UW.
Nothing you have said supports the notion that UW doesn't support basketball at the same level MU supports basketball.
The budgetary differences are due to structural items, not evidence that MU cares more.
The problem is that you continue to equate how much you spend with how much you care.the argument is most attractive job. If you're a coach, resources matter. MU is consistently in the top 5-10 in terms of BBall investment. It means they are willing to spend when required. This means no ticky tack arguments with your AD about getting your assistants the university-paid leases they were promised, etc. it doesn't on its own make MU a better job than any place else, but it is an advantage vs Bucky.
Except good budget management says you spend what you have to in order to achieve the desired goal.
I just gave you three examples where UW didn't have to spend as much as Marquette because of structural differences in the programs. It has nothing to do with a lower prioritization of basketball.
So let me ask you this: When this year's numbers come out, we'll likely see a drop in MU basketball spending on account of Wojo not getting the same money Buzz got in his last season (and not having to pay Chew-like money to assistants). Are you prepared to lead the argument that the new spending levels mean MU suddenly started caring less about basketball? That's been your argument so far--money=prioritization.
Who ever said they aren't able to match us? They easily could.since you seem to think compensation is only based on retention, UW has been WAY overpaying, and should have reduced Bo's contract annually, as there was zero chance he'd leave to take over at another program.
My argument is that they don't have to and they achieve the same (or higher) level of success than we do.
Therefore, its false to look at the budget and conclude they don't care about basketball.
Except that upkeep isn't a basketball expense. It's a facilities expense. Just like MU has to pay upkeep on the Al which isn't a basketball expense.
I imagine you'd reject the argument that since UW spends more on upkeep for the Kohl center than MU spends on upkeep for the AL, it should be evidence that they care more about their facilities than MU.
The fact remains, rent is a $0 item for them. MU still has to pay rent for a venue for its basketball team.
UW has averaged nearly sellout since they opened the Kohl center. They didn't luck into one good year of attendance because they were performing well. And in our best years, we never averaged a sellout.
No, because your argument ignores reality.
If Buzz Williams threatens to leave if he doesn't get a huge raise, and Bo Ryan is happy and doesn't ask for a huge raise, Williams gets a huge raise and Ryan doesn't.
Someone else mentioned Izzo and why Ryan doesn't make the same. Well, Izzo's name is floated every time the Pistons hire a head coach. When has Bo Ryan EVER indicated he might leave Wisconsin?
Not said was that the pie at MU is a lot smaller than the pie at UW.
Nothing you have said supports the notion that UW doesn't support basketball at the same level MU supports basketball.
The budgetary differences are due to structural items, not evidence that MU cares more.
Who ever said they aren't able to match us? They easily could. BUT THEY DON'T
I'd suggest that a good shorthand for a rough sorting of strongest to weakest bball programs in their current state is to take a look at:
1) The number of current alumni in the NBA
2) The current salary of those aumni
This normalizes for conferences, and really measures the total of recruits, development and exposure a coach is able to acheive at an institution.
This even gets more tilted in favor of MU if you consider the coming Brinks trucks headed to Butler and Wade, as well as the highest paid coach in the league being Doc. These players were recruited by and played during two different coaching "administrations," and we could, in all likelihood, say that Henry will make this list from Wojo's first class at MU. That is a strong program that a coach can move quickly to build upon.
Marquette - 5 players, $32m
- Butler - $2m
- Wade - $19m
- Novak - $4m
- Matthews - $6m
- Crowder - $1m
Wisconsin - 3 players, $14m
- Devin Harris - $10m
- Jon Leuer - $1m
- Greg Stiemsma - $3m
Found the following list at http://rpiratings.com/NBA.php, and there may be some out of order, but I'd say this roughly passes the sniff test.
I, for one, was surprised considering that UW has a better coach, resources, facilities, recruiting pipeline and conference.... How does MU do it since we are inferior in every way?
Division I Schools Ranked by Number of Players in NBA
No. Players
School In NBA
Duke 18
Kentucky 18
Kansas 17
North Carolina 16
UCLA 15
Arizona 12
Florida 12
Connecticut 9
Texas 8
Washington 8
Georgia Tech 7
Michigan St. 7
Georgetown 6
LSU 6
Memphis 6
Michigan 6
Southern Cal 6
Syracuse 6
Marquette 5
Wake Forest 5
Baylor 4
Colorado 4
Gonzaga 4
Indiana 4
New Mexico 4
Ohio St. 4
Stanford 4
UNLV 4
Alabama 3
Arkansas 3
California 3
Creighton 3
Louisville 3
Maryland 3
Miami-FL 3
Missouri 3
Nevada 3
Oklahoma St. 3
Purdue 3
Tennessee 3
Texas A&M 3
Vanderbilt 3
Wichita St. 3
Wisconsin 3
Arizona St. 2
Boston College 2
Butler 2
BYU 2
Cincinnati 2
Clemson 2
Dayton 2
Detroit 2
Fresno St. 2
Illinois 2
Iowa 2
N.C. State 2
Oregon 2
Oregon St. 2
Pittsburgh 2
San Diego St. 2
St. John's 2
St. Mary's 2
Utah 2
VCU 2
Villanova 2
Virginia 2
Washington St. 2
Western Kentucky 2
Belmont 1
Bucknell 1
Central Michigan 1
Cleveland St. 1
Colorado St. 1
Davidson 1
DePaul 1
Eastern Wash. 1
Georgia 1
Harvard 1
IUPUI 1
Kansas St. 1
La Salle 1
Lehigh 1
Long Beach St. 1
Louisiana Tech 1
Minnesota 1
Morehead St. 1
Murray St. 1
Norfolk St. 1
North Texas 1
Oklahoma 1
Old Dominion 1
Rider 1
Saint Joseph's 1
Santa Clara 1
Seton Hall 1
South Dakota St. 1
St. Bonaventure 1
Temple 1
Towson 1
Tulsa 1
Time to update that. Butler just got paid.yep - didn't really want to go through the extra work, but I agree that next year this will be even more lopsided
I'd suggest that a good shorthand for a rough sorting of strongest to weakest bball programs in their current state is to take a look at:Another observation: Wade, Novak and Henry will be NBA players coming from three different conferences. That doesn't seem to impact program performance as much as the Badger fellators of this board would believe.
1) The number of current alumni in the NBA
2) The current salary of those aumni
This normalizes for conferences, and really measures the total of recruits, development and exposure a coach is able to acheive at an institution.
This even gets more tilted in favor of MU if you consider the coming Brinks trucks headed to Butler and Wade, as well as the highest paid coach in the league being Doc. These players were recruited by and played during two different coaching "administrations," and we could, in all likelihood, say that Henry will make this list from Wojo's first class at MU. That is a strong program that a coach can move quickly to build upon.
Marquette - 5 players, $32m
- Butler - $2m
- Wade - $19m
- Novak - $4m
- Matthews - $6m
- Crowder - $1m
Wisconsin - 3 players, $14m
- Devin Harris - $10m
- Jon Leuer - $1m
- Greg Stiemsma - $3m
Found the following list at http://rpiratings.com/NBA.php, and there may be some out of order, but I'd say this roughly passes the sniff test.
I, for one, was surprised considering that UW has a better coach, resources, facilities, recruiting pipeline and conference.... How does MU do it since we are inferior in every way?
Division I Schools Ranked by Number of Players in NBA
No. Players
School In NBA
Duke 18
Kentucky 18
Kansas 17
North Carolina 16
UCLA 15
Arizona 12
Florida 12
Connecticut 9
Texas 8
Washington 8
Georgia Tech 7
Michigan St. 7
Georgetown 6
LSU 6
Memphis 6
Michigan 6
Southern Cal 6
Syracuse 6
Marquette 5
Wake Forest 5
Baylor 4
Colorado 4
Gonzaga 4
Indiana 4
New Mexico 4
Ohio St. 4
Stanford 4
UNLV 4
Alabama 3
Arkansas 3
California 3
Creighton 3
Louisville 3
Maryland 3
Miami-FL 3
Missouri 3
Nevada 3
Oklahoma St. 3
Purdue 3
Tennessee 3
Texas A&M 3
Vanderbilt 3
Wichita St. 3
Wisconsin 3
Arizona St. 2
Boston College 2
Butler 2
BYU 2
Cincinnati 2
Clemson 2
Dayton 2
Detroit 2
Fresno St. 2
Illinois 2
Iowa 2
N.C. State 2
Oregon 2
Oregon St. 2
Pittsburgh 2
San Diego St. 2
St. John's 2
St. Mary's 2
Utah 2
VCU 2
Villanova 2
Virginia 2
Washington St. 2
Western Kentucky 2
Belmont 1
Bucknell 1
Central Michigan 1
Cleveland St. 1
Colorado St. 1
Davidson 1
DePaul 1
Eastern Wash. 1
Georgia 1
Harvard 1
IUPUI 1
Kansas St. 1
La Salle 1
Lehigh 1
Long Beach St. 1
Louisiana Tech 1
Minnesota 1
Morehead St. 1
Murray St. 1
Norfolk St. 1
North Texas 1
Oklahoma 1
Old Dominion 1
Rider 1
Saint Joseph's 1
Santa Clara 1
Seton Hall 1
South Dakota St. 1
St. Bonaventure 1
Temple 1
Towson 1
Tulsa 1
I'd suggest that a good shorthand for a rough sorting of strongest to weakest bball programs in their current state is to take a look at:
1) The number of current alumni in the NBA
2) The current salary of those aumni
Could not agree more with BrewCity.a two year downturn doesn't equate to a significant dive in program quality, just as UW's two years of FFs doesn't make them a Blue Blood.
Look at the last two seasons. We are going to brag about NBA $$$?
I have no doubt their time is close to an end, but use a proper measuring stick. Over a 10/15/20 year period they have been better no matter how you measure it. Historically, long term we are better. But in 20+ years we have gone farther in the Dance only 2 times.
The future is so bright... 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
I'd suggest that is about the dumbest way to sort the strongest to weakest basketball programs I've ever heard. Program strength isn't based on what players do after they leave the program. How moronic is that? It's based on what the program does as a program. Factors that would all trump number of alums would be...its not perfect in every instance, but it is absolutely the best measurement for current status of a program. Not all-time accomplishments (too much weight on the distant past) and not weighting current seasons too much (in UW's case these last two years are outliers).
1) National titles
2) Final Fours
3) NCAA tourney appearances
4) NCAA tourney wins
5) Conference titles
6) Conference tourney titles
7) Head-to-head records
8) NCAA winning percentage
9) Number of 20+ or 25+ win seasons
10) Anything else that relates to actual PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
By the logic you are presenting, schools like LSU (1 Final Four in the past 20 years), USC (1 Elite 8 in the past 20 years), Wake Forest (1 Elite 8 in the past 20 years), Colorado (2 NCAA wins in the past 20 years), and New Mexico (4 NCAA wins in the past 20 years) are stronger programs than Wisconsin? The same Wisconsin with 3 Final Fours and 29 NCAA wins in the past 20 years?
Give me a break. The only schools that place more value on who they put on NBA rosters than actual on-court performance are schools that are losers on the court. Please do not put Marquette in that category by making such a stupid, inane argument.
So, Bo's next gig is gonna be ridin' a dildo, ai na?
its not perfect in every instance, but it is absolutely the best measurement for current status of a program. Not all-time accomplishments (too much weight on the distant past) and not weighting current seasons too much (in UW's case these last two years are outliers).
I can't talk you out of your intense love for Bucky, but I'd say your team is way underperforming in terms of NBA successes with such a dominant program.
First of all, you don't know me. I have no love for Bucky. I hate them with every fiber of my being. I have been an active member on numerous Marquette sites, written for numerous Marquette blogs, been a season ticket holder ever since I've been able to afford it, graduated from Marquette, and absolutely, without a doubt bleed Marquette blue and gold. Anyone who has spent any time on these boards can tell you my team is Marquette. If my fandom for Marquette has any flaw at all, it's that I'm overly optimistic and put a happier shine on the MU program than just about anyone out there. So you can stuff that "intense love of Bucky" right up your ass.1) The topic I was addressing with the NBA measure was an attempt to capture the attractiveness of a job to a coaching candidate. I stand by the method to roughly get that right. Bo is a great coach but that doesn't mean the program is the most attractive job once he leaves
However I'm not so blinded by that love that I can't acknowledge Wisconsin has been at worst one of the top-10 programs of the past 20 years. Bo may be the Grinch, but he's a damn savvy Grinch that has done an amazing job recruiting guys that fit his system and found ways to win more consistently over his career than anyone outside of Duke, Kansas, and MSU. They have had an excellent program and anyone saying otherwise is absolutely, positively clueless about college basketball.
Again, prioritizing NBA success over actual winning is for losers. I would trade every minute Dwyane Wade has played in the NBA for 2 more wins in 2003. I would happily given up all the NBA opportunities for Wes, Lazar, and Jerel if only Dom could have stayed healthy in 2009 and found a way to get our top-10 team a Final Four and national title.
NBA accolades are nice. I like to see our guys succeed after they leave. But I'm a fan of Marquette, not the NBA as a league. I could give a rat's ass who wins the NBA title, who is the MVP, or how much money those guys are earning. As long as they are happy and supporting their families, it is irrelevant if they are in the NBA, the D-League, playing in Europe, or running a balloon shop in Atlanta.
On the other hand, I do care IMMENSELY about how Marquette does on the court. I care about Marquette winning the Big East, winning games in the NCAAs, getting back the national title, and putting kids on the All-American teams. I personally would rather see a Marquette player win one national title and be named to the All-American team once than see that same player win 5 NBA titles and be a 10-time All-Star. Why? BECAUSE I CARE ABOUT MARQUETTE!
If you want to place all your value on the NBA, have fun with that. Then you can bask in the glory with amazing programs like Wake Forest and USC. Loser programs that have loser mentalities that Marquette should absolutely not be associated with. Give me Marquette winning over former players NBA paychecks any day of the week. Because to a MARQUETTE FAN, the former should matter WAY MORE than the latter.
1) The topic I was addressing with the NBA measure was an attempt to capture the attractiveness of a job to a coaching candidate. I stand by the method to roughly get that right. Bo is a great coach but that doesn't mean the program is the most attractive job once he leaves
2) Wisconsin is absolutely not a top ten program over the past ten years. I'll give you ten better: 1) Duke, 2) Connecticut, 3) Louisville, 4) Kentucky, 5) North Carolina, 6) Kansas, and 7) Florida all won National Championships. 8) Michigan State went to four Final Fours. 9) Butler went to back-to-back NC games. 10) UCLA went back-to-back-to-back Final Fours.
I'm not saying you aren't an MU fan as well, but I don't know how you put so much weight on UW like they are a force of nature. Bo Ryan is a hall of fame coach. HE is spectacular. Even with him at the helm, the last two years were a complete outlier, and won't happen again at UW. Now that Bo is gone, and there are no more Bo-type coaches, there is little else to point to support them maintaining aything close to the success he enjoyed even before the FF runs.
Wild guess: you grew up in the state of Wisconsin?
It will still be an attractive job. They play in a major conference (sadly bigger than ours) and have plenty of money as well as elite facilities and a great athletic dorm. Don't let your hate of UW blind you to how much potential the program has. Bo laid the foundation, and as long as a coach has the belief he can recruit, it can be a great job. It isn't Duke, Kansas, UNC, or Kentucky, but it's in that next tier of 10-15 jobs. I would say Marquette is in that tier as well.You're out of your mind. Made some edits to my last post before I realized you'd responded, btw.
First, I said 20, not ten. UW has been to the Final Four with two different coaches (even if the Bennett Final Four was even more an outlier). But 17 straight years in the tournament, 14 years in the top-4 of a high-major conference, and 3 Final Fours is huge. I'm sentimental toward Butler, but to indicate they have had more success than UW over the past 2 decades is ridiculous. I'd give you the top-8. After that, it's UW and UCLA, sadly. They're pretty much dead even at 9.
They are in for a fall, but you could just as easily argue that the past 2 years weren't the outlier and that the only surprise is Bo didn't get that far sooner. Before the past 2 FF appearances, they had 3 conference titles and 2 conference tourney titles, as well as 15 straight years in the Dance. Bo's teams notoriously underperformed when it came to March. Rather than this being the outlier, it's a lot more like them catching up with the mean.
As far as sustained success, that's always about the next coach. No matter how UW fans may desire it, they won't get Tony Bennett. I would pretty much guarantee there's a better chance of Wojo leaving and TB taking the Marquette job than there is of him following Bo at UW. Even less chance they could pry Shaka Smart away from Texas (another name delusional Bucky fans like). But if they aren't sold on Gard (who could be great, he's identified much of the Badgers' recent talent and is a good X's & O's coach by all reports) they could likely get interest from guys like Bryce Drew at Valpo, Ben Jacobson at UNI, Steve Masiello at Manhattan, or even Archie Miller at Dayton. Any of them could succeed at Wisconsin.
I did. But if anything, that has further spurred my hatred of everything Red. I've spent years mocking Bo's failures in March and deriding Badger fans for their failures to capitalize on great collegiate players like Tucker, Taylor, and Leuer. But the bottom line is they finally came through and Bo's legacy is now cemented. I can't stand him, but he's the best coach UW has ever had. And not just in basketball. And because of him, their program hasn't just thrived, it has the chance to continue to thrive beyond him.
First, I said 20, not ten. UW has been to the Final Four with two different coaches (even if the Bennett Final Four was even more an outlier). But 17 straight years in the tournament, 14 years in the top-4 of a high-major conference, and 3 Final Fours is huge. I'm sentimental toward Butler, but to indicate they have had more success than UW over the past 2 decades is ridiculous. I'd give you the top-8. After that, it's UW and UCLA, sadly. They're pretty much dead even at 9.From my late edit above...
I did. But if anything, that has further spurred my hatred of everything Red. I've spent years mocking Bo's failures in March and deriding Badger fans for their failures to capitalize on great collegiate players like Tucker, Taylor, and Leuer. But the bottom line is they finally came through and Bo's legacy is now cemented. I can't stand him, but he's the best coach UW has ever had. And not just in basketball. And because of him, their program hasn't just thrived, it has the chance to continue to thrive beyond him.Whoever you think is arguing that Bo isn't a HOF coach, go have that argument with them.
You're out of your mind. Made some edits to my last post before I realized you'd responded, btw.
Says the guy who thinks NBA paychecks has anything to do with collegiate program success ::)the only support you've offered to counter my theory with NBA players and paychecks being associated with program success is that you don't like it. You seem to be confusing my argument of association with one of causation. I agree that Butlers max deal will not impact MU's chances at a NC in the future.
Also, 94-95 was 21 years ago. So take UCLA off your title list, as well as that 13-14 season for UW.
And here's the funniest bit...I don't even think Bo Ryan was the right hire for UW, even considering everything he did there.
They give basketball 6% of their athletic budget. We give ours 35%. Basketball is second fiddle at Wisconsin, some times third fiddle. The priority will always be football. The institution will always support football before basketball. The fans will always support football over basketball. I am not saying that they do not care. I am saying that they will never care as much about basketball as they do football. At Marquette, basketball will always be the priority.A brief respite from 77 eviscerating GA.....
Wisconsin is a better job than Marquette right now. Really no question about it.
So simply, you would put USC, LSU, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wake Forest ahead of UW? Your assumption that NBA roster positions is a better indicator of program success than actual program success is inherently flawed because mediocre programs like those 5 can stumble into occasional NBA players without actually accomplishing anything significant on the court.gThe point I'm making is about two schools: Marquette and Wisconsin. The Wisconsin program, despite recent successes, is not at or above Marquette's in terms of the attractiveness of the job.
Wow, I've never seen you miss like this before.
Wisconsin has had more recent success than Marquette, really no question about that.
But, without a doubt, Marquette is the better job. If Wisconsin had opened up last year, would Wojo have been involved? Wisconsin's success isn't related to institutional factors. It has been built upon the back of a coach who had a system that fit well with the school. Gard will get hired because that is by far the best opportunity Wisconsin has for continuing the success that they have had by continuing with the current system. If another coach were to come in who was not going to retain Ryan's way of doing things, could you realistically see Wisconsin being successful following the Ohio State or Michigan State model? I don't see that.
+1000000woa woa woa - lets consult brewcity77 on this; UW is CLEARLY among the most elite programs in the nation.
This is spot on. Ryan is a HOF coach because he recognized Madison's limitations as a program. He knew he could not continue his preferred up tempo style while at Plattville. He realized that at the D1 level teams that slowed the game to a glacial pace always had a shot at winning. The fact that a coach has to adopt his style because of a program's limitations does not scream top tier job, let alone top 10 in the country.
Wow, I've never seen you miss like this before.
Wisconsin has had more recent success than Marquette, really no question about that.
But, without a doubt, Marquette is the better job. If Wisconsin had opened up last year, would Wojo have been involved? Wisconsin's success isn't related to institutional factors. It has been built upon the back of a coach who had a system that fit well with the school. Gard will get hired because that is by far the best opportunity Wisconsin has for continuing the success that they have had by continuing with the current system. If another coach were to come in who was not going to retain Ryan's way of doing things, could you realistically see Wisconsin being successful following the Ohio State or Michigan State model? I don't see that.
Seriously, who are you? Go back to your Badger board and choke on Bo's shlong while you're at it. Why are you so intent on disproving MU relevance. Fact of the matter is MU hoops has wayyy more money then UW does.
Grow up. He's been posting here for years.
Stop this crap with the "must be a Badger fan" line of thinking. A Marquette education should be teaching you to objectively weigh facts and form opinions without bias. Use it.
yes - let's all use concrete facts here... But not investment, or condition/size of facilities, or quality of recruits.... Basically lets just assume somehow UW is a more desirable job.
Grow up. He's been posting here for years.
Stop this crap with the "must be a Badger fan" line of thinking. A Marquette education should be teaching you to objectively weigh facts and form opinions without bias. Use it.
The point I'm making is about two schools: Marquette and Wisconsin. The Wisconsin program, despite recent successes, is not at or above Marquette's in terms of the attractiveness of the job.
You seem to be arguing for arguing's sake here; any suggestion (based on facts) that UW may not be the elite program you wish it was seems to have sent you into a rambling, jealous stew.
As this is likely the last post of mine you'll read before blocking, thanks for the entertainment.
yes - let's all use concrete facts here... But not investment, or condition/size of facilities, or quality of recruits.... Basically lets just assume somehow UW is a more desirable job.
**Both schools are heavily invested in basketball.
**I think UW's facilities are better for reasons I have stated
**Quality of recruits? The recruit the same territory. Both are heavily dependent on the coach they bring in.
You have come to a different opinion.
**Both schools are heavily invested in basketball.Investment - MU>UW
**I think UW's facilities are better for reasons I have stated
**Quality of recruits? The recruit the same territory. Both are heavily dependent on the coach they bring in.
You have come to a different opinion.
Investment - MU>UW
Facilities - you're entitled to your opinion, but any quantitative measure would favor MU... but sure I'll give you this as a subjective preference
Recruits - MU's recruiting classes outrank Uw's almost every year.
Not everyone has to agree, but don't parade yours like it's from some empirical evidence.
So the NBA alum metric is a good one only for comparing these two schools? Dude, that's the very definition of a bad metric! :DNot what I said.
Quantitative measures would mean numbers, in the case of facilities, its capacity and budget for renovations/construction of athletic facilities on campus (BC bigger than Kohl, Al renovations budget, $ committed to new athletic research facility).
Investment is a shell game. The studies cited aren't true apples to apples. For instance, Marquette's "investment" includes the rent paid to the BC. Since UW doesn't have to pay rent, there is no cost to show there. I think it is safe to say that both schools are highly invested.
Curious, about facilities you say that "any quantitative measure would favor MU." What "quantitative measures" are those?
And recruiting rankings are just rankings. They don't speak to the quality of the program as much as the quality of the coaching, and who the coaches are targeting. I mean, Buzz was outrecruiting Bo, but his players transferred, he left, and Bo developed Frank Kaminsky into the national POY. You put both coaches into the other situation and you'd likely see the situations reversed.
And as I said above, the biggest disparity is conference affiliation and the money and exposure it brings.
quantitative measures would mean numbers, in the case of facilities, its capacity and budget for renovations/construction of athletic facilities on campus.
MU puts more money in coach's pockets than UW. that's not a shell game.
We're all entitled to our opinions, but don't claim to be objective and citing clearly measurable evidence when you aren't. You're just seeing quantitative/objective areas where MU is superior and dismissing them as unimportant, while putting weight on more subjective preferences.
When you say recruiting rankings reflect the coach more than the program, I'd point to our own Tanned Tommy, who routinely pulls in stronger classes as IU than he did at MU. The next IU coach will likely continue this trend. Similarly, three MU coaches in a row have out-recruited Bo. You're making my point for me: Bo would recruit better from MU, thus that is a strength of the MU job.
Buzz made $3.1m his last year at MU. Bo made $2.8M while going to back to back FFs as a HOF coach. Wojo is a first year coach, so of course he won't make more than Bo, but the ceiling of income is clearly higher at MU.
Bo Ryan makes more money than Wojo. He makes more money than Buzz did. Ryan was in the top 10 highest paid coaches in the country last year.
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/mens-basketball/coach/
And actually I don't think Bo would recruit better at MU. He would have recruited about the same. He'd target the same type of player and play largely the same style. And he would win with those players like he is winning at UW.
And for facilities, you keep citing objective measurements, without actually providing any numbers.
Not what I said.
If you want to form your own opinion, you don't need any data to back it up, but if you're going to call someone else's opinion crazy, you should have data to support your argument.
There is no singular job attractiveness ranking, but I've provided the following which I argue are related to that:
- Salary (measured in dollars) - helps candidate get wealthy
- Resources (measured in dollars) - helps candidate win
- Facilities (measured in capacity and renovation budget) - helps candidate win
- NBA sucess of players writhing past 10 years (measured in # and salary) - indicates consistency of talent coming through program (degree to which program has momentum)
- Recruiting pipeline (measured in class rankings) - also a measure of the program momentum... Meaning amount of effort required to bring in elite talent)
The objective measurements you seem to offer is that, in recent years, a HOF coach took a UW team with an uncharacteristic level of talent to two FFs. I'll remind you again, this isn't an argument that Bo is a bad coach. He's a great coach.
Buzz made $3.1m his last year at MU. Bo made $2.8M while going to back to back FFs as a HOF coach. Wojo is a first year coach, so of course he won't make more than Bo, but the ceiling of income is clearly higher at MU.
Facility numbers:
BC capacity: 19,000
KC capacity: 17,000
I'll save you the math: 19,000 is more than 17,000.
- Salary: Sure, but UW can pay as much or more than Marquette. Money won't be a deterring factor, and NBA salaries of former players won't play any role in the decision of a coach looking at UW as a job. And as of right now, Bo is making more than Wojo. Edge: Wisconsinyour first two points start with "sure, but" - I wouldn't worry about anyone mistaking you for a homer, because you concede the point and then imediately defend UW and proclaim them moral victors.
- Resources: Sure, but UW has great resources. We spend on basketball because it's our bellcow. Regardless, UW has the ability to spend more than us. They haven't had to yet, but like Va Tech luring Buzz, if it gets them a big coach, they'll commit to that extra money. Edge: Even
- Facilities: Right now, UW's are better. If we get the sports medicine institute, arena, and an athletic dorm, ours would be better. Right now, they aren't. Edge: Wisconsin
- NBA success will always be trumped by actual program success. Conference will also trump NBA success. Buzz wasn't going to go to New Mexico, Nevada, Davidson, or Butler over Va Tech just because of their NBA players. Edge: Marquette
- Recruiting pipeline: This is the most often misevaluated portion. Recruiting big names in November and April is less important than recruiting players that win in February and March. Evaluate a class 4 years after they commit and you'll have a better sense of how good that class truly was. Their pedigree over the past 10-15 years includes names like Alando Tucker, Frank Kaminsky, Jordan Taylor, Jon Leuer, Josh Gasser, Ben Brust, Jared Berggren, etc. They've recruited just fine. Edge: Even
Buzz is not a HOF coach (at least as of cashing his $3.1M). Bo was, and was in the middle of the absolute pinnacle of the program's success, ever. Buzz made more.
That's right on Buzz's salary. I forgot that Williams, LLC had a big year his last year. Here is the year by year. So pretty much on par with what Bo was making.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=47740.msg733564#msg733564
So capacity is the only number that matters in determining quality of facility? So if Marquette has a 2/3 filled BC that doesn't matter? Does that mean that both the BC and the KC are better than Cameron Indoor Stadium and the Phogg Allen Fieldhouse because they fit more people?
BTW I'm not saying Wojo's salary is north of Bo's, but that data isn't available anywhere yet. We won't know until next year what he made this year.
That's right on Buzz's salary. I forgot that Williams, LLC had a big year his last year. Here is the year by year. So pretty much on par with what Bo was making.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=47740.msg733564#msg733564
So capacity is the only number that matters in determining quality of facility? So if Marquette has a 2/3 filled BC that doesn't matter? Does that mean that both the BC and the KC are better than Cameron Indoor Stadium and the Phogg Allen Fieldhouse because they fit more people?
your first two points start with "sure, but" - I wouldn't worry about anyone mistaking you for a homer.
For salary, the current UW coach salary is not what a new guy will necessarily get, and MU has issued bigger paydays in the past than UW football OR basketball. Edge is MU and you're embarrassing yourself by even pretending otherwise. You're saying that hypothetical potential holds not related than over a decade of actual, measurable behavior. That is absolutely asinine and I don't even have to defend MU on either of those. Hands down MU wins.
Your defenses of UW being "yea but they COULD do more!" Don't hold any water
Now, I've shared objective support for my point, even if you just take the first two (since you dismiss the last two as irrelevant). Where are your objective statements?
Money won't stop UW from hiring a coach. Simple as that. It won't stop them in terms of salary and won't stop them in terms of putting it into the program. Bo didn't demand more so they didn't give more.90% of this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I'll address the one that sort of does:
The reason Marquette has had to (over)pay for their coaches to that extreme is because they were always sniffing at other jobs. That's what happens when you have guys that play out their interest publicly.
If Wojo has great success and never indicates a desire to leave, Marquette isn't going to give him silly money just for the sake of it. But if he has average (for our standards) success and is taking calls from every AD in the country, we'll overpay to keep him. That's our MO.
And the last two are not irrelevant. The NBA factor is nice, it simply pales in comparison to actual program production. And recruiting is a good indicator, but if you are going to base it on how many stars Rivals or Scout or ESPN gives to a high school kid that hasn't played a minute of college ball, your view on evaluating recruiting is inherently flawed. Which isn't a horrible thing, I think MOST fans method of evaluating recruiting is inherently flawed.
Our culture is one that demands instant satisfaction. That's why recruiting rankings for HS kids are so popular. But plenty of kids, especially in the 20-100 range, never produce the way they are expected to, and plenty of kids in the 101-250 range produce above expectations.
Who should be lauded more for their recruiting, guys like Buzz Williams that misevaluated players like Jamail Jones, Erik Williams, and Juan Anderson, or guys like Bo Ryan that consistently found less coveted but more productive players like Frank Kaminsky, Jordan Taylor, and Josh Gasser?
I would rather have a productive player that a media member has never heard of than a non-productive player that a media member calls top-100 any day of the week.
Quite simply, which of these were better "gets" for their respective programs? 2007, Trevor Mbakwe or Jon Leuer? 2009, Erik Williams or Mike Brusewitz? 2010, Vander Blue and Jamail Jones or Ben Brust and Josh Gasser? 2011, Juan Anderson and Derrick Wilson or Frank Kaminsky and Traveon Jackson?
In pretty much every case there, the Marquette guys were more highly rated. In every case there, the Wisconsin guys were more productive. So who was the one doing better recruiting? The school that got guys with more stars and less wins, or the guys that had less stars and more wins?
I'll take wins over star-rankings any day of the week.
Mostly the guy who throws stuff out there, then when his argument fails him, abandons it.I've stayed consistent... Unless you can point out where I haven't been.
Mostly the guy who throws stuff out there, then when his argument fails him, abandons it.Regardless of your Badger fluffing, the fact remains that MU pays coaches more, has objectively superior facilities, and provides more resources for their program.
I've stayed consistent... Unless you can point out where I haven't been.
I'm noticing you keep steering things to a comparison of coaches and not jobs.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_j7xkQHEYUok/S-PGx73bmQI/AAAAAAAAC9U/t0pY090C9TM/s400/mapplethorpe+selfportrait.jpg
After reading the last few pages of nonsense, I really want to channel my inner-Rocky here, but the problem is, I don't have mod privileges (EVERY SINGLE ONE of you should be thankful for that, BTW)
So I'll just do what Keefe does:
As you said, you abandoned NBA alums. Why? Because you couldn't counter that actual production mattered more. You abandoned the recruiting angle. Why? Because you don't care to comment on my specific recruiting examples? You've drifted from the facilities argument despite me giving specific examples (newer arena, athlete specific dorm) of why UW is winning that battle.I abandoned it because you said it was irrelevant. If you agree it's relevant we can re-include it. If we do, then that's more in the column for MU.
As far as "winning this one", I suppose if you spin your argument enough different ways, avoiding the arguments you clearly lost, then yes, you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself you're a good boy. ::)
As you said, you abandoned NBA alums. Why? Because you couldn't counter that actual production mattered more. You abandoned the recruiting angle. Why? Because you don't care to comment on my specific recruiting examples? You've drifted from the facilities argument despite me giving specific examples (newer arena, athlete specific dorm) of why UW is winning that battle.For each of these I'm doing my bet to keep on objectively verifiable items, like capacity/budget.
As far as "winning this one", I suppose if you spin your argument enough different ways, avoiding the arguments you clearly lost, then yes, you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself you're a good boy. ::)
I abandoned it because you said it was irrelevant. If you agree it's relevant we can re-include it. If we do, then that's more in the column for MU.
Would you like to do that?
Also you said recruiting rankings were unreliable and misleading. This was a compromise. We can reinclude that, but that will also skew MU.
You can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself you're a good boy. ::)thanks; don't need any permission to boost my own ego
thanks; don't need any permission to boost my own ego
LOLJesus, man: from your own post:
I didn't call it irrelevant, I said there were numerous more important factors, all of which you preferred to ignore. I explained why recruiting rankings were a flawed metric, you abandoned them, but seem to only want to include them if they favor Marquette and ignore them if they are actually analyzed objectively.
You must be dizzy by now from all this talking in circles you're doing. ;D
Yeah. I mean God forbid people debate something actually on topic - providing opinions and basis for those opinions.
Jesus, man: from your own post:So the unofficial tally:
1) Salary - You conceded salary was an edge to MU (MU 1, UW, 0)
2) Resources - You conceded "sure," and MU spends more on BBall (MU 2, UW 0)
3) NBA - You conceded MU wins here, I'm happy to include, per your request (MU 3, UW 0)
4) Recruiting - You said "Even" I disagree but at this point the argument is won. Awarding both teams a point, gives us (MU 4 UW 1)
What revision of argument are you looking for here? In the areas we agree, MU is the clear winner.
This is already a pretty big waste of time without arguing for points I've already proven.
1 & 2) Money isn't an issue for Wisconsin. They haven't spent more because they haven't had to. But they undoubtedly have deeper pockets than we do.With regard to NCAA Wins, Final Fours, etc, I don't think that impacts a job's attractiveness. Just the same way that out three straight sweet sixteens didnt really help Wojo in year 1. How far back do you go here? Do you factor in tradition? The decade of the 1970s? Or do you just compare the last two years?
3) NBA. We have more. Care to address all those other factors I brought up, like NCAA wins, Final Fours, conference regular season/tourney titles, and actual on-court college production? Or is that inconvenient because it doesn't favor Marquette?
4) Facilities Nice job ignoring this one...though that seems to be your tendency when you can't win a point.
5) Recruiting. We win the star rankings, they win the production rankings. Again, which would you rather have?
1 & 2) Money isn't an issue for Wisconsin. They haven't spent more because they haven't had to. But they undoubtedly have deeper pockets than we do.I think you could actually make the case that recent success in some cases could be a negative. Buzz's stated reason for leaving (if you believe it) was that he wasn't sure he could maintain that level of success "Elite Eights." VaTech was an attractive job for him in part because of the lack of success.... long leash.
3) NBA. We have more. Care to address all those other factors I brought up, like NCAA wins, Final Fours, conference regular season/tourney titles, and actual on-court college production? Or is that inconvenient because it doesn't favor Marquette?
4) Facilities Nice job ignoring this one...though that seems to be your tendency when you can't win a point.
5) Recruiting. We win the star rankings, they win the production rankings. Again, which would you rather have?
4) Facilities Nice job ignoring this one...though that seems to be your tendency when you can't win a point.Dude. I conceded facilities even though I disagree. You'd like to continuing fighting on that one? What are you hoping to accomplish?
With regard to NCAA Wins, Final Fours, etc, I don't think that impacts a job's attractiveness.
Dude. I conceded facilities even though I disagree. You'd like to continuing fighting on that one? What are you hoping to accomplish?
So when UW wins a point, it's because of bias (despite me being anti-UW), and we'll only include the points Marquette wins in your scoring system, because that's objective? Hmm...I'm not sure you understand how the Internet works.Your logic skills are on full display, particularly in ignoring that I included points for UW, regardless of whether I disagreed with them. What is the problem you have with that?
EDIT: Thanks, mods.
Hmm...I'm not sure you understand how the Internet works.Huh?
I officially declare this a Scoop Gang Bangisn't it more of a sex show? two people going at it so hard that they ignore all the background noise and commentary on their work.
isn't it more of a sex show? two people going at it so hard that they ignore all the background noise and commentary on their work.I can't believe we're making love!
with the frequency and focus it's down right artistic (like a sex show)
Your logic skills are on full display, particularly in ignoring that I included points for UW, regardless of whether I disagreed with them. What is the problem you have with that?
To review
Salary: Point MU
Resources: Point MU
NBA: Point MU
Recruiting: Wash
Facilities: Point UW
Conference: Point UW
Thus: MU: 3, UW: 2
Well, as you changed your score from 4-1 to 3-2 without including things like conference titles, final four appearances, and ignoring UW's ability to spend, nothing.I guess I'll let you have the last word.
I WANT Marquette to be tops in all of these. I want us to be among the elite. I want a new arena, sports medicine institute, better housing, and more titles. But in recent history, the reality is Madison is coming out ahead.
If Wojo can start winning the Big East, making deep tourney runs, and we get the needed facility upgrades, I'm confident we have the ability to come out ahead on all fronts. 5 years ago we were clearly ahead. Poor recruiting and upgrades in Madison have changed that since then. But until those things happen, and until UW falls off from where they're at (seems likely, but hasn't happened yet), claiming a decisive victory in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence is premature.
I guess I'll let you have the last word.I was just trying to stay within the milieu that was established with gang bang.
naginiF - Your familiarity with sex shows is throwing shade in a lot of directions.
Your logic skills are on full display, particularly in ignoring that I included points for UW, regardless of whether I disagreed with them. What is the problem you have with that?
To review
Salary: Point MU
Resources: Point MU
NBA: Point MU
Recruiting: Wash
Facilities: Point UW
Conference: Point UW
Thus: MU: 3, UW: 2
Alvarez said he’s already heard from coaches interested in the UW job and will be prepared to start the interview process once the job is posted following the completion of next season. I was told the job has already been posted
Your logic skills are on full display, particularly in ignoring that I included points for UW, regardless of whether I disagreed with them. What is the problem you have with that?
To review
Salary: Point MU
Resources: Point MU
NBA: Point MU
Recruiting: Wash
Facilities: Point UW
Conference: Point UW
Thus: MU: 3, UW: 2
I don't understand the ignorance on salary and negotiation on this board. Not singling out this person because others have concluded MU > UW in terms of salary.Im not an insider, but I'll just share my basis for the salary discussion.
Do any of you actually consider the one-on-one salary negotiations before making these broad-brushed statements?
Just considering MU's situation, we would have paid far more if we could have landed Shaka. We would have paid far less had we had to settle for promoting Issac Chew. The salary isn't a function of the program--its a function of what the other guy at the table wants (and can command) in a negotiation. We don't care less about the program because we paid less to Wojo than we would have for Shaka.
Don't like that comparison? How about this: we paid far less for Buzz his first year than we would have been willing to pay for Bennett or Miller. Again, its not a sign that MU cares less about its program--its the reality of the negotiation process.
If UW falls in love with a guy and he wants $3.5 million, UW will give him $3.5 million, which would according to the logic of some on this board be evidence that they suddenly care more about their program. That's stupid.
Applying this to the business world, Tim Cook has done an awesome job, but continues to be compared to Steve Jobs. Jeff Immelt succeeded Jack Welch, and is still compared with his success.
Both CEOs are doing well because of their execution and the healthy businesses they were left, but in either case, their legendary predecessor is a drag on their evaluations.
Could be the same case with Bo, Izzo, etc
I believe that was Kevin O'Neill's problem with our place in the 1990s. Too much Al. Too little Kevin.
In our case, I would compare our last hire to Madison's last hire. We retained Duke's Number 1 assistant. They went to Platteville. I also suspect they may be going down the "Hank" road if they hire their number 1 assistant, as Dracula wants. I hope for the Red Rodent's sake, they do what we did and embark on a national search to hire the best coach they can get. It would be good for basketball and good for us.
Who knows… Marquette -- Wisconsin could become the new Duke/North Carolina or Louisville/Kentucky!
Would be hilarious if they hired a UNC alum who was an associate head coach over there
Unfortunately, neither of Roy's long time assistants are UNC alums. There is Hubert Davis, though, but he's only been an assistant since 2012-13.
arena size is a moot point if it's half full.
Not entirely true, I'd take a half full Bradley center over a 100% full 9,000 seated stadium. If a coach truly believes in themselves then they'd take it as a challenge to get that stadium filled again.
Not entirely true, I'd take a half full Bradley center over a 100% full 9,000 seated stadium. If a coach truly believes in themselves then they'd take it as a challenge to get that stadium filled again.
I would take a 9,000 seat arena where tickets are fought over rather than a 1/2 full BC. No question.
So you'd rather always be content with a 9,00 seat arena filled than ever have the years like 11-12 where we averaged absurd numbers and had plenty of sold out games?
Yes. I have said since it opened that I think the BC is too big. (Honestly, I would prefer a 12,000 seat arena over 9,000, but would prefer the 9,000 over the BC.)
Any discussion comparing Bo Ryan's salary to anyone else is meaningless without taking into account his state pension. He's been a WI state employee for 40 years and will finish with an extremely high salary for his final years of employment. He's getting ready to start collecting the mother of all pensions at taxpayer expense beginning next year and continuing for the rest of his life.
I must be way off - is that all interest earnings?
Taxpayer expense? It's sitting in his account at WRS. He's not collecting anything that wasn't earned.
I must be way off - is that all interest earnings?
It is basically an annuity. You have a big pot of money, that has been built through employee and employer contributions over time, and that is used to pay the retiree. (It isn't that simple since there is a formula involved, but still...)
It is basically an annuity. You have a big pot of money, that has been built through employee and employer contributions over time, and that is used to pay the retiree. (It isn't that simple since there is a formula involved, but still...)
Yes. I have said since it opened that I think the BC is too big. (Honestly, I would prefer a 12,000 seat arena over 9,000, but would prefer the 9,000 over the BC.)
Hello... where do you think the money to support our basketball program comes from?
Yes, I know TV plays a role. But having a 17,000 seat arena and the ability to fill it when we're really good matters. It really does.
For years, we played in an arena with 11,700 seats. We sold out every game, to the rafters. We moved to the Bradley Center and average these days about 12,000 to 14,000 tickets sold. Under these circumstances, I see no situation where a 10,000 seat arena would assist us.
If I had my choice, I would want a 12,000 seat arena on campus.
Make it 15K and allow beer sales, and I'm on board.
Make it 15K and allow beer sales, and I'm on board.
Make it 15K and allow beer sales, and I'm on board.
Yes, the Benny B Thunderdome will serve beer. No, it won't seat 15,000 (closer to Sultan's 12 is probable). Groundbreaking is still on schedule for early to mid- 2030.
Dropped to #22 in attendance last year.
13,657
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/Reports/attend/2015.pdf
The game at the Al torpedoed that. Without it, they would have averaged over 14,300 and finished #19.
Hello... where do you think the money to support our basketball program comes from?
Yes, I know TV plays a role. But having a 17,000 seat arena and the ability to fill it when we're really good matters. It really does.
For years, we played in an arena with 11,700 seats. We sold out every game, to the rafters. We moved to the Bradley Center and average these days about 12,000 to 14,000 tickets sold. Under these circumstances, I see no situation where a 10,000 seat arena would assist us.
The game at the Al torpedoed that. Without it, they would have averaged over 14,300 and finished #19.during the second down year in a row
during the second down year in a row
(Yeah, yeah ... I know that Duke is Duke -- and we're not!)
Not sure where Duke's revenue comes from, but I know a lot of our's comes from the 14,000 to 18,000 people who buy tickets on a regular basis for our games/Agreed bigger is better!
I was at Marquette when our Arena seated 11,700. I would have much rather had an 18,000 seat arena at the time any day of the week. Would have loved to watch Al fill an 18,000 seat arena night after night.
Bigger is better! Especially if it is full!
Agreed bigger is better!
Three ideas on the Duke revenues:
- Cost per ticket is higher than MU
- Duke almost certainly pulls in way more from merchandising
- ACC contract provides more $ to ball than MU does
So is Coach K a dope for not insisting the Dookies play at the Carolina Hurricanes' PNC Arena? They could draw twice as many fans to the bigger place!
(Yeah, yeah ... I know that Duke is Duke -- and we're not!)
Not sure where Duke's revenue comes from, but I know a lot of our's comes from the 14,000 to 18,000 people who buy tickets on a regular basis for our games/
So since we averaged 14,300 for the games in the BC, the program must be on life support due to the fact that only 300 extra tickets were sold?
Bigger is most definitely not better if it means a loss of gameday atmosphere.
A third coming, realistically. This season will be critical. A good Italy trip will build excitement to reverse this, but that is perhaps too optimistic with all the newcomers.
(Yeah, yeah ... I know that Duke is Duke -- and we're not!)
I doubt the Italy trip will generate much excitement outside of Scoopers.
I doubt the Italy trip will generate much excitement outside of Scoopers.Well, there are a lot of diehard MU fans and boosters who never frequent Scoop.
Not sure where Duke's revenue comes from, but I know a lot of our's comes from the 14,000 to 18,000 people who buy tickets on a regular basis for our games/
I presume it comes from the money trees on campus, right?
You can bet the revenue model is slightly different when one school is named after a tobacco tycoon and the other after a Jesuit priest.Ours is primarily fur-based
Ours is primarily fur-based
Marquette is in trouble. There isn't much fur around these days
I still say he isn't retiring next year....people jumping the gun.
I still say he isn't retiring next year....people jumping the gun.
Love it - let him come back - let it drag out - who cares - if there really is some sort of issue brewing here all the better - reduces the chance of success for the next coach whoever it is - I can see why a retiring coach wants a part in picking his successor, it probably makes the last years of recruiting easier/palatable when there's a succession plan you can intimate to recruits- but the bottom line is Bo doesn't get paid to hire head coaches - however, there's that sticky thing about precedent with Barry - tough spot for the program -
If Bo is interested in getting Gard the job, he should have just retired back in June. They would have had no choice but to hire him as at least as interim. But no AD is going to just give Gard the job. (Unless they name Bo AD.)
From what I heard, this is what Bo tried to do (force their hand), and Barry said Gard would be hired as the interim coach for a year and then they would throw the kitchen sink at Bennett. I think that would've been awesome, as I don't see Bennett leaving.
I'm not sure it's so much Bennett leaving that I don't see, but rather him coming to Wisconsin. They torched that bridge when Dick was nudged out.
For me, this is why Bo saying the whole "one more year" thing was bad for Wisconsin basketball. It hamstrung them with the 2016 class because players have no idea who they'll be playing for. They couldn't recruit under the auspices of Gard being the head man because Barry so publicly rebutted that option.
Bo saying he'll coach longer is completely a recruiting ploy. "Sure Joey, I'll put off retirement for you." At the same time, he wants Gard to get the job, so he probably figures maybe if he keeps at it for another year or two he'll outlast Barry and sell the new guy on Gard.
Either way, this will make negative recruiting against Wisconsin very easy. "Come to Eastwestern State, at least here you know who your coach will be." Bo should have just sacked up and retired when he wanted to. Wisconsin basketball would be better off for it.
I'm hearing that this isn't really a "power struggle" either. Barry doesn't care if Bo sticks around. He doesn't want to be in the middle of a Gard v. others thing. Barry just knows he can't give the job to Gard like he gave his job to Beilema. He got his hand slapped very hard after that move, and this chancellor is likely not to be as forgiving as the one who was in charge at the time.
Let's be clear... the reluctance in "giving the job" to Gard because of Beilema has nothing to do with Beilema's character or departure.
Let's be clear... the reluctance in "giving the job" to Gard because of Beilema has nothing to do with Beilema's character or departure.
Such is why Jeter will be interviewed, even though Gard will ultimately get the job. It's a pity, really.... Jeter could be a much better coach than Gard will ever be if not for the fact that he's stuck at a dash school.
but it's all power struggle between Barry and Bo over whether Gard gets the job when Bo steps down.
Nothing against Jeter, but I don't think that's the reason, and I don't think he'd be popular at all at Wisconsin. They have a culture ingrained against transfers, which has become a staple of his program, including JUCOs like James Eayrs, Tone Boyle, Kaylon Williams, Paris Gulley, Jordan Aaron, and Trinson White. He has also never been able to build consistent success at UWM. Two NCAA bids (one with Pearl's players) in 10 years, 4 losing seasons, and has never put together back-to-back 20-win seasons.
That's not because he's at a hyphen school. You can win in the Horizon. Pearl won with Milwaukee, Wardle won with Green Bay, Stevens with Butler, Drew (all of them) with Valpo, it can definitely be done. Now none of that means Gard won't be successful at Wisconsin or wherever, but if Jeter was high-major caliber, I'd think he'd be showing it by now.
I suppose that's true. But I think Bennett is very, very comfortable/happy where he is. And it's not hard to imagine why.
Bo was 30-27 overall and 13-15 in two years at UWM, finishing 4th and 5th in conference with no post-season. So do you think UW hired him A) based on his prior success at a D-III school B) because they thought he'd be a good coach given a different environment (one that would allow him to thrive) or C) because they liked his track record with traditionals?
Nothing against Jeter, but I don't think that's the reason, and I don't think he'd be popular at all at Wisconsin.
They have a culture ingrained against transfers
He has never put together back-to-back 20-win seasons.
but if Jeter was high-major caliber, I'd think he'd be showing it by now.
UWM's record under Bo's predecessor (Ric Cobb): 28-81
UWM's record under Jeter's predecessor (Bruce Pearl): 86-38
Bo literally replaced the worst coach in UWM basketball history. The program was a mess. A winning record in Bo's first year was considered a minor miracle. UW had a lot of people pushing for Bo, and they thought he proved something at a Division 1 school...albiet UWM. They were right.
Rob Jeter replaced the most successful coach in UWM history. He made the NCAA with Pearl's recruits in the first year, and then hasn't done much of anything in the nine years since. A NIT bid, a CBI bid, and an NCAA bid when they won the Horizon League as a fifth seed. And now they are on academic probation.
So is your answer A, B or C?
None really. They hired him because of his success at Platteville PLUS his relative success at Milwaukee that proved that he could coach in D1.
Rob Jeter has no success prior to Milwaukee.
Perhaps... yet he was responsible for kicking off Bo's success at Platteville.
Check.
not to mention UW basketball when Bo was hired was a FAR lower-profile program than coming off back-to-back FF runs.
None really. They hired him because of his success at Platteville PLUS his relative success at Milwaukee that proved that he could coach in D1.
Rob Jeter has no success prior to Milwaukee.
not to mention UW basketball when Bo was hired was a FAR lower-profile program than coming off back-to-back FF runs.
not to mention UW basketball when Bo was hired was a FAR lower-profile program than coming off back-to-back FF runs.
I guess Wisconsin coming off the 2000 Final Four was a 'program in trouble?'
Personally, I think Bo Ryan was handed the keys to a luxury automobile. To his credit he sustained the success.
To be fair they had three NCAA appearances since the 40s... It's like billy Donovan, he inherited a program with no bball tradition that had suddenly had some success and he was able to capitalize.
What people? Do you mean Bo himself? Wasn't he the one who said he was retiring in a year and now having second thoughts? I guess maybe he jumped the gun.
I just don't think he wants to go out yet, especially after this coming season. He would have been better off to retire after this past season, but yes I think he is coming back.
Hopefully Skeletor will channel his inner Brett Favre and destroy any continuity in the rodent program.
Come on man, let this hater hate.
Do you just make this sh1t up?? There is no "power struggle" between Ryan and Alvarez over Gard because Alvarez doesn't care if Ryan comes or goes.
You pretend you are a connected insider... #donedeal
Brew isn't the only one saying this. No need for the unwarranted attack of character
You must be talking about BrewCity...the leading perpetrator of unwarranted character attacks.
I for one prefer character assassinations. They usually are cleaner, to the point and done in the shadows.
And it has an impact. UW was apparently not interested in Sam Hauser because they were focusing on Maverick Rowan. When Bo announced he was retiring, Rowan pretty much eliminated UW and stated that Bo's retirement was a reason.This is joyous news!
I for one prefer character assassinations. They usually are cleaner, to the point and done in the shadows.
..."people" did not "jump the gun." Bo Ryan announced he was retiring. Should "people" have not reported it, not discussed it, and just ignored it? Bo Ryan is the person who jumped the gun.